NOTE ON RESTRICTION MAPS OF CHOW RINGS TO WEYL GROUP INVARIANTS arxiv: v1 [math.at] 9 May 2016

Transcription

1 NOTE ON RESTRICTION MAPS OF CHOW RINGS TO WEYL GROUP INVARIANTS arxiv: v1 [math.at] 9 May 2016 NOBUAKI YAGITA Abstract. Let G be an algebraic group over C corresponding a compact simply connected Lie group. When H (G) has p-torsion, we see ρ CH : CH (BG) CH (BT) WG(T) is always not surjective. We also study the algebraic cobordism version ρ Ω. In particular when G = Spin(7) and p = 2, we see each Griffiths element in CH (BG) is detected by an element in Ω (BT), 1. Introduction Let p be a prime number. Let G be a compact Lie group and T the maximal torus. Let us write H ( ) = H ( ;Z (p) ), and BG,BT classifying spaces of G,T. Let W = W G (T) = N G (T)/T be the Weyl group and Tor H (BG) be the ideal generated by torsion elements. Then we have the restriction map ρ H : H (BG) H (BG)/Tor H (BT) W by using the Becker-Gottlieb transfer. It is well known that when H (G) is p-torsion free (hence H (BG) is p-torsion free), then ρ H surjective. However when H (G) has p- torsion, there are cases that ρ H are not surjective, which are founded by Feshbach [Fe]. Let us write by G C,T C the reductive group over C and its maximal torus corresponding the Lie group G,T. Let us write simply CH (BG) = CH (BG C ) (p),ch (BT) = CH (BT C ) (p) thechowrings of BG C and BT C localized at p. We consider the Chow ring version ρ CH : CH (BG) CH (BG)/Tor CH (BT) W = H (BT) W. Our first observation is Theorem 1.1. Let G be simply connected. If H (G) has p-torsion, then the map ρ CH is always not surjective Mathematics Subject Classification. 55N20, 55R12, 55R40. Key words and phrases. Chow ring, algebraic cobordism, BSpin(n). 1

2 2 NOBUAKI YAGITA Intheproof,weuseanelement x H 4 (BG)withρ H (x) Im(ρ CH ). Hence x Im(cl) for the cycle map cl : CH (BG) H (BG). The correspondingelement 1 x CH (BG m BG)istheelementfounded as a counterexample for the integral Hodge and hence the integral Tate conjecture in [Pi-Ya]. Next, we consider elements in Tor. To study torsion elements, we consider the following restriction map res H : H (BG) Π A:abelian G H (BA) W G(A). There are cases such that res H is not injective, while for many cases res H are injective. We consider the Chow ring version ([To1,2]) of the above restriction map res CH : CH (BG) Π A:ab. CH (BA) W G(A) Π A:ab. H (BA) W G(A). Ingeneralres CH hasnonzerokernel. Inparticular,elementsinKer(cl) (i.e. Griffiths elements) for the cycle map cl : CH (BG) H (BG) are always in Ker(res CH ). Namely Griffiths elements are not detected by res CH. On the other hand, if the Totaro conjecture CH (BG) = BP (BG) BP Z (p) (forthebrown-petersoncohomologybp ( ))iscorrect, thenofcourse all elements in CH (BG) are detected by elements in BP (BG). We show that there is a case that Griffiths elements are detected by ρ Ω the restriction for algebraic cobordism theory Ω ( ). Let Ω (X) = MGL 2, (X) MU BP be the BP-version of the (p) algebraic cobordism defined by Voevodsky, Levine-Morel ([Vo1], [Le- Mo1,2] such that CH (X) = Ω (X) BP Z (p). In particular, we consider the case G = Spin(7) and p = 2. We note that there are (non zero) Griffiths elements in CH (BG). Theorem 1.2. Let G = Spin(7) and p = 2. Then each Griffiths element (in CH (BG)) is detected by an element in Ω (BT) W = BP (BT) W. In 2 we study the map ρ H for the ordinary cohomology theory, and recall Feshbach s result. In 3, we study the Chow ring version and show Theorem1.1. In 4, we study the case G = Spin(n). In 5, we study the BP -version and the algebraic cobordism version for the restriction ρ. In 6, we write down the case G = Spin(7) quite explicitly, and show Theorem 1.2. In the last section, we note some partial results for the exceptional group G = F 4 and p = 3.

3 CHOW RING AND WEYL GROUP INVARIANTS 3 The author thanks Kirill Zainoulline to start considering this problem, and Masaki Kameko who gives many comments and suggestions, and lets the author know works by Benson-Wood and Feshbach. 2. cohomology theory and Feshbach theorem Let p be a prime number. Let G be a compact Lie group and T the maximal Torus. Then we have the restriction map ρ H : H (BG) H (BT) W where H ( ) = H ( ;Z (p) ), BG,BT are classifying spaces and W = W G (T) = N G (T)/T is the Weyl group. It is well known that when H (G) is p-torsion free, then ρ H is surjective (and hence is isomorphic). However when H (G) has p-torsion, there are cases that ρ H are not surjective by Feshbach. For a connected compact Lie group G, we have the Becker-Gottlieb transfer τ : H (BT) H (BG) such that τρ H = χ(g/t) for the Euler number χ( ), and ρ H τ(x) = χ(g/t)x for x H (BT) W. Let χ(g/t) = N and Tor be the ideal of H (BG) generated by torsion elements. Then we have the injections N H (BT) W H (BG)/Tor H (BT) W. Feshbach found good criterion to see ρ H is surjecive. Theorem 2.1. (Feshbach [Fe]) The restriction ρ H is surjective if and only if (H (BG)/Tor) Z/p has not nonzero nilpotent elements. Proof. (Feshbach) First note that H (BT) = Z (p) [t 1,...,t l ] for t i = 2. Hence if x m = px in H (BT), then x = px for x H (BT). Moreover if x H (BT) W, then so is x since H (BT) is p-torsion free. Thus we see H (BT) W Z/p has no non zero nilpotent elements. Assume that ρ H is not surjective, and x H (BT) W but x Im(ρ H ). Let s 1 be the smallest number such that ps x = ρ H (y) for some y H (BG). Hence y 0 mod(p). Then ρ H(y N ) = (p s x) N = p sn x N pn H (BT) W pim(ρ H). This means y is a nonzero nilpotent element in (H (BG)/Tor) Z/p. Using this theorem, Feshbach [Fe] showed ρ H is surjective for G = G 2, Spin(n) for n 10, and is not surjective for Spin(11),Spin(12). Wood [Wo] showed that Spin(13) is not surjective but Spin(n) for 14 n 18 are surjective. Benson and Wood solved this problem completely, namely ρ is not surjective if and only if n 11 and n = 3,4,5 mod(8).

4 4 NOBUAKI YAGITA For odd prime, we consider mod(p) version ρ H/p : H (BG;Z/p) H (BT;Z/p) W = (H (BT)/p) W. It is known that ρ H/p are surjective when G = F 4 for p = 3 by Toda [Tod] using a completely different arguments. Also different arguments (but without computations of H (BT) W for concrete cases), Kameko and Mimura [Ka-Mi] prove that ρ H/p are surjective when G = E 6,E 7 for p = 3 and G = E 8 for p = 5. (The only remain case is G = E 8, p = 3 for odd primes.) Kameko-Mimura get more strong result. Recall the Milnor Q i operation Q i : H (X;Z/p) H +2pi 1 (X;Z/p) defined by Q 0 = β and Q i+1 = [P pi Q i,q i P pi ] for the Bockstein β and the reduced powers P j. Theorem 2.2. (Kameko-Mimura [Ka-Mi]) Let G = F 4,E 6.E 7 for p = 3 or E 8 for p = 5. Let us write a generator by x 4 in H 4 (BG) = Z (p). Then we have H (BT;Z/p) W = H even (BG;Z/p)/(Q 1 Q 2 x 4 ). Corollary 2.3. For (G,p) in the above theorem, ρ H is surjective. Since its Q 0 -image is zero, we can identify the element Q 1 Q 2 (x 4 ) is in H (BG) and p-torsion. The above corollary is immediate from the following lemma. Lemma 2.4. If the composition (H (BG)/Tor) Z/p H (BT) W /p H (BT;Z/p) W is injective, then ρ H is surjective. Proof. Let ρ H be not surjecive and y H (BT) W with y Im(ρ H ). Thenp s y = ρ H (x)fors 1andanadditivegeneratorx H (BG)/Tor. Of course x = 0 (H (BT)/p) W. 3. Chow rings Let us write by G C,T C the reductive group over C and its maximal torus corresponding the Lie group G. Let CH (BG) = CH (BG C ) (p be the Chow ring of BG C localized at p. The arguments of Feshbach also work for Chow rings since the Becker-Gottlieb transfer is constructed by Totaro [To2]. Lemma 3.1. The restriction map ρ CH of Chow rings is surjective if and only if (CH (BG)/T) Z/p has not nonzero nilpotent elements.

5 CHOW RING AND WEYL GROUP INVARIANTS 5 However if H (G) has p-torsion and G is simply connected, then (CH (BG)/Tor) Z/p always has non zero nilpotent elements. In fact, c 2 = px 4 CH 4 (BG) in the proof of Theorem 3.3 below, is nilpotent in (CH (BG)/(Tor)) Z/p. However from the proof of the above lemma, we note Corollary 3.2. If x CH (BT) W but x Im(ρ CH ), then there is y CH (BG) such that ρ CH (y) = ps x for some s 1 and y is non zero nilpotent element in (CH (BG)/(Tor)) Z/p. Voevodsky [Vo1,2] defined the Milnor operation Q i on the mod p motivic cohomology (over a perfect field k of any ch(k)) Q i : H, (X;Z/p) H +2(pn 1), +p n 1 (X;Z/p) which is compatible with the usual topological Q i by the realization map t C : H, (X;Z/p) H (X(C);Z/p) when ch(k) = 0. In particular, note for smooth X, Q i CH (X)/p = Q i H 2, (X;Z/p) = 0. (See 2 in [Pi-Ya] for details.) We will prove the following theorem without using Feshbach theorem (Lemma 3.1). Theorem 3.3. Let G be simply connected and H (G) has p-torsion. Then the restriction map is not surjective. ρ CH : CH 2 (BG) CH 2 (BT) W Proof. (See 2,3 in [Pi-Ya].) At first, we note that H (BT) W = CH (BT) W since H (BT) = CH (BT). If H (G) has p-torsion, then G has a subgroup isomorphic to G 2 (resp. F 4, E 8 ) for p = 2 (resp. p = 3, 5). (For details, see [Ya2] or 3 in [Pi-Ya].) We prove the theorem for p = 2 but the other cases are proved similarly. ItisknownthattheinclusionG 2 GinducesasurjectionH 4 (BG) H 4 (BG 2 ) = Z (2) and let us write by x 4 its generator. Then it is also known Q 1 x 4 0 in H (BG 2 ;Z/2) where Q 1 is the Milnor operation. Therefore x 4 H 4 (BG 2 ) is not in the image of the cycle map cl : CH 2 (BG 2 ) H 4 (BG 2 ). On the other hand, the element 2x 4 is in Im(cl) because it is represented by the second Chern class c 2. Since ρ Q is an isomorphism, ρ H (x 4) 0. But ρ H (x 4) is not in the image ρ CH. Remark. The condition of simply connected is necessary. By Vistoli ([Vi], [Ka-Mi]), it is known that ρ CH is surjective for G = PGL(p).

6 6 NOBUAKI YAGITA Remark. The above theorem is also proved by seeing that x 4 is not generated by Chern classes, since CH 2 (X) is always generated by Chern classes [To2]. Recall that for a smooth projective complex variety X, the integral Hodge conjecture is that the cycle map cl /Tor : CH (X) H 2 (X)/Tor H, (X) is surjective where H, (X) H 2 (X;C) is the submodule generated by (, )-forms. Since px 4 = c 2 in the proof of the above theorem and c 2 H, (X), we see x 4 H, (X). We know [To1], [Pi-Ya] that BG m BG can be approximated by smooth projective varieties. Hence counterexamples for the integral Hodge conjecture with X = BG m BG give the examples such that ρ CH is not surjective. Lemma 3.4. Let 1 y Im(cl /Tor ) H (BG m BG) be a counterexample of the integral Hodge conjecture. Then it gives an example such that ρ CH is not surjective, namely, ρ H (y) Im(ρ CH ). Proof. First note that ρ H/Tor : H (BG)/Tor H (BT) W is injective. SinceCH (BT) W = H (BT) W, wenoteρ CH = ρ H/Tor cl /Tor.Therefore y Im(cl /Tor ) implies that ρ H (y) Im(ρ H/Tor cl /Tor) = Im(ρ CH ). For each prime p, there are counterexamples X = BG m BG for the integral Hodge conjecture, while they are not simply connected. Indeed, Kameko, Antineau and Tripaphy ([Ka1,2], [An], [Tr]) show this for G = (SL p SL p )/Z/p and SU(p 2 )/Z/p. Hence they give the examples such that ρ CH are not surjective for non simply connected and all p cases. They proved these facts by using Chern classes. We also note its converse. Recall [Pi-Ya] that the integral Tate conjecture over a finite field k is the ch(k) > 0 version of the integral Hodge conjecture. Lemma 3.5. Let x H (BT) W such that x ρ CH but x = ρ H (y). Moreover let p s y be represented by Chern class for s 1. Then 1 y H (BG m BG) gives a counterexample of the integral Hodge conjecture. It also gives a counterexample of the integral Tate conjecture for a finite field k of ch(k) p Proof. Since p s y is represented by a Chern class, we see p s y Im(cl). Hence it is contained in H, (BG m BG). Hence so is y. Since x ρ CH, we see y cl /Tor. For arguments for the integral Tate conjecture see [Pi-Ya].

7 CHOW RING AND WEYL GROUP INVARIANTS 7 4. Spin(n) for p = 2 In this section, we study Chow rings for the cases G = Spin(n), p = 2. Recall that the mod(2) cohomology is given by Quillen [Qu1] H (BSpin(n);Z/2) = Z/2[w 2,...,w n ]/J Z/2[e] where e = w 2 h( ) and J = (w 2,Q 0 w 2,...,Q h 2 w 2 ). Here w i is the Stiefel-Whitney class for the natural covering Spin(n) SO(n). The number 2 h is the Radon-Hurewitz number, dimension of the spin representation (which is the representation C 0 for the center C = Z/2 Spin(n)). The element e is the Stiefel-Whitney class w 2 h of the spin representation. Hereafter this section we always assume G = Spin(n) and p = 2. By Kono [Ko], it is known that H (BG;Z) has no higher 2-torsion, that is H(H (BG;Z/2);Q 0 ) = (H (BG)/Tor) Z/2 where H(A;Q 0 ) is the homology of A with the differential d = Q 0. For ease of arguments, let n be odd i.e., n = 2k + 1. Let T be a maximal Torus of SO(n) and W = W SO(n) (T ) its Weyl group. Then W = S ± k is generated by permutations and change of signs so that S ± k = 2k k!. Hence we have H (BT ) W = Z(2) [p 1,...,p k ] H (BT ) = Z (2) [t 1,...,t k ], t i = 2 where the Pontriyagin class p i is defined by Π i (1+t 2 i ) = i p i. For the projection π : Spin(n) SO(n), the maximal torus of Spin(n) is given π 1 (T ) and W = W Spin(n) (T) = W. To seek the invariant H (BT) W is not so easy, since the action W = S ± k is not given by permutations and change of signs. Benson and Wood decided the H (BT ) W -algebra structure of H (BT) W (Theorem 7.1 in [Be- Wo]) and proved Theorem 4.1. (Benson-Wood) Let G = Spin(n) and p = 2. Then ρ H is not surjective if and only if n 11 and n = 3,4,5 mod(8) (i.e., the quaternion case). Hereafter to study the Chow ring version, we assume Spin(n) is in real case [Qu1], that is n = 8l 1,8l,8l+1 (hence ρ is surjective and h = 4l 1,4l 1,4l respectively). In this case, it is known [Qu1] that each maximal elementary abelian 2-group A has rank 2 A = h+1 and e A = Π x H 1 (BĀ;Z/2) (z +x)

8 8 NOBUAKI YAGITA where we identify A = C Ā and H1 (BĀ;Z/2) = Z/2{x 1,...,x h } is the Z/2 vector space generated by x 1,...,x h, and H (BC;Z/2) = Z/2[z], H (BĀ;Z/2) = Z/2[x 1,...,x h ]. The Dickson algebra is written as a polynomial algebra where d i is defined as Z/2[x 1,...,x h ] GL h(z/2) = Z/2[d0,...,d h 1 ]. e A = z 2h +d h 1 z 2h d 0 z. Hencewecan[Qu1]alsoidentifyd i = w 2 h 2 i( ) H (BSpin(n);Z/2). Lemma 4.2. (Lemma 2.1 in [Sc-Ya]) Milnor operations act on d i by Q h 1 d i = d 0 d i, Q j 1 d j = d 0, for 1 j, Q i d j = 0 for i < n 1 and i j 1. Lemma 4.3. (Corollary 2.1 in [Sc-Ya]) We have Q h 1 e = d 0 e and Q k e = 0 for 0 k h 2. Theorem 4.4. Let T G = Spin(n) for n = 8l,8l±1. There is an e CH (BT) W such that e Im(ρ CH ) and ρ H (e) = e mod(2). Proof. First note that e C = z 2h, which is not in the Q 0 -image, and hence e itself is not. From the preceding Lemma 4.2 we see Q 0 e = 0. By Kono s result, we see 0 e H(H (BG;Z/2);Q 0 ) = (H (BG)/Tor) Z/2). Take e H (BG)/Tor with that e = e mod(2). Then e = ρ H (e ) 0 in H (BG)/Tor H (BT) W. From the preceding Lemma 4.2, Q h 1 (e) 0. hence we see e ρ CH by the existence of Q i in the motivic cohomology by Voevodsky. Let C be the complex representation induced from the real representation. Then we see (see Theorem 4.2 in [Sc-Ya]) c 2 h 1( C ) C = 2w 2 h C = 2z 2h. Of course this element c 2 h 1( C ) is in the Chow ring CH (BG). hence we see that we can take 2e Im(ρ CH ). From the result by Benson-Wood, we know ρ H is surjective in this (real) case. Hence from Lemma 3.5 (or Q h 1 (e) 0), we have Corollary 4.5. Let X = BG m BSpin(n) with n = 8l,8l ± 1 The element 1 e H 2h (X) H 2h 1,2 h 1 (X) gives a counterexample for the integral Hodge and the integral Tate conjectures, namely 1 e Im(cl H/Tor ).

9 CHOW RING AND WEYL GROUP INVARIANTS 9 5. cobordism Let BP (X) be the Brown-Peterson cohomology theory with the coefficients ring BP = Z (p) [v 1,v 2,...] of degree v i = 2(p i 1). Let Ω (X) = MGL 2, (X) MU BP be the BP -version of the algebraic cobordism ([Vo1], [Le-Mo1,2]) such that Ω (X) BP Z (p) = CH (X). We consider the cobordism version of the map ρ H ρ Ω : Ω (BG) Ω (BT) W = BP (BT) W. Although A 1 -homotopy category has the Becker-Gottlieb transfer (this fact is announced in [Ca-Jo]), we see τ ρ Ω = χ(g/t) mod(v 1,v 2...) which is not χ(g/t) in general. So we can not have the Ω -version of Feshbach s theorem. We are interesting in an element x Ω (BT) W which is in Im(ρ Ω ). Of course, it is torsion free in Ω (X), but there is a case such that 0 x CH (BG)/p = Ω (BG) BP Z/p and x is p-torsion in CH (BG). Lemma 5.1. Let f H (BT) W, f 0 mod(p), and identify f grω (BT) = Ω H (BT). Let f Im(ρ Ω ) but v mf Im(ρ Ω ). Then v j f Im(ρ Ω ) for all 0 j m. Namely, there is c j Ω (BG) such that ρ Ω (c j) = v j f, c j 0 Ω (BG) BP Z/p = CH (BG)/p, moreover pc j = 0 in CH (BG) for j > 0. Proof. We consider the Landweber-Novikov cohomology operation r a in grω (BT) = Ω H (BT). By Cartan formula, r a (v m f) = a=a +a r a (v m )r a (f). Here r a (f) = 0 for a > 0 in grω (BT) = Ω H (BT). We have operations r βj (v m ) = v j for j m, and we have the first statement. From the assumption, f itself is not in the cycle map ρ Ω. Hence v j f is a BP -module generator in Ω (BT) W Im(Ω (BG))). Hence it is also non zero in CH (BG)/p. Since pv j f = v j pf v j Im(Ω (BG)), we have pc j = 0 CH (BG). We consider the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence (AHss) E, 2 = H (X;BP ) = BP (X)

10 10 NOBUAKI YAGITA It is known that ( ) d 2p i 1(x) = v i Q i (x) mod(p,v 1,...,v i 1 ). In general, there are many other types of non zero differential. However we consider cases that differentials are only of this form. Lemma 5.2. Let X = BSpin(n) and n = 8l,8l ± 1. In AHss for BP (X), assume all non zero differentials are of form ( ). Then pe,v 1 e,...,v h 2 e are all permanent cycles. Proof. WeuseLemma4.2intheprecedingsection. FirstrecallQ i (d 0 ) = 0, Q i (e) = 0 for i < h 1. Therefore d 0 e exists in E 2 h 1. Since Q j 1 d j = d n and Q k (d j ) = 0 for k < j 1, the differential in AHss is d 2 j 1(d j e) = v j 1 Q j 1 (d j e) = v j 1 d 0 e. Hence we have (2,v 1,v 2,...,v h 2 )(d 0 e) = 0 in E, 2 h 1. Now we study the differential d 2 h 1(e) = v h 1 Q h 1 (e) = v h 1 d 0 e. Note that e is BP -free in E,, 2 h 1, since e C = z2h and e Im(Q i ). Hence we have Ker(d 2 h 1) BP {e} = Ideal(2,v 1,...,v h 2 ){e}. (Inthispaper,R{a,b,...}meanstheR-freemodulegeneratedbya,b,...) By the assumption ( ) for differentials, pe,v 1 e,..., v h 2 e are all permanent cycles. For 7 n 9, AHss converging BP (BSpin(n)) is computed in [Ko-Ya], ([Sc-Ya] also), and it is known that ( ) is satisfied. Corollary 5.3. For n = 7,8 (resp. n = 9), the elements pe,v 1 e (resp. pe,v 1 e,v 2 e) are in Im(ρ BP ) BP (BT) W ( but e itself is not). Let K(n) (X) be the Morava K-theory with the coefficients ring K(n) = Z/p[v n,vn 1], and AK(n) (X) = AK(n) 2, (X) its algebraic version. Here we consider an assumption such that ( ) AK(n) (BG) K(n) (BG) is surjecive. It is known by Merkurjev (see [To1] for details) that AK (BG) = K (BG) for the algebraic K-theory AK (X) and the complex K- theory K (X), which induces AK(1) (BG) = K(1) (BG). Hence ( ) is correct when n = 1 for all G. Lemma 5.4. Let X = BSpin(n), n = 8l,8l±1 and suppose ( ),( ). Moreover let h 3. Then v h 2 e Im(ρ Ω ), and hence there is c i CH (X) for 0 i h 2 in Lemma 5.1.

11 CHOW RING AND WEYL GROUP INVARIANTS 11 Proof. First note 0 v h 2 e K(h 2) (X) (hence so is e). On the other hand AK(h 2) (X) = K(h 2) CH (X)/I forsomeideali ofch (X). Thereforethereisanelement c CH (X) which corresponds v s h 2 e that is cl Ω(c) = v s h 2 e for cl Ω : Ω (X) BP (X). Since e Im(cl Ω ), we see s must be positive. The possibility of v s h 2 e = 2(2h 2 1)s+2 h > 0 is s = 1 or s = 2. Note vh 2 2 e = 4. However it is known by Totaro (Theorem 15.1 in[to2]), Hence s = 1 and cl Ω (c) = v h 1 e. cl : CH 2 (X) H 4 (X) is injective. Corollary 5.5. For X = BSpin(7), there is an element c CH 3 (X) such that c 0 CH (X)/2, cl(c) = 0 and ρ Ω (c) 0 Ω (BT) W. 6. Spin(7) for p = 2 Let G be a compact Lie group. Consider the restriction map res H/p : H (BG;Z/p) Lim V :el.ab. H (BV;Z/p) W G(A) where W G (A) = N G (A)/C G (A) and V ranges in the conjugacy classes of maximal elementary abelian p-groups. Quillen [Qu2] showed this res H/p is an F-isomorphism (i.e. its kernel and cokernel are generated by nilpotent elements). We consider its integral version res H : H (BG) Π A:ab. H (BA) W G(A), where A ranges in the conjugacy classes of maximal abelian subgroups of G. Hereafter this section, we assume G = Spin(7) and p = 2 and hence h = 3. The number of conjugacy classes of the maximal abelian subgroups of G is two, one is the torus T and the other is A = (Z/2) 4 which is not contained in T. The Weyl group is W G (A ) = U,GL 3 (Z/2) GL 4 (Z/2) where U is the maximal unipotent group in GL 4 (Z/2). It is well known H (BG;Z/2) = H (BA ;Z/2) W G(A ) = Z/2[w4,w 6,w 7,w 8 ], Q 0 w 6 = w 7 where w i for i 7 (resp. i = 8) are the Stiefel-Whitney class for the representation induced from Spin(7) SO(7) (resp. the spin representation and hence w 8 = w 8 ( ) = e).

12 12 NOBUAKI YAGITA Since H (BG) has just 2-torsion by Kono, and hence the restriction map res H injects Tor H (BG) into H (BA ;Z/2) W G(A ). Next we consider the integral case. Also note H (BG) has just 2- torsion and (H (BG)/Tor) Z/2 = H(H (BG;Z/2);Q 0 ). Since Q 0 w i = 0 for i 6 and Q 0 w 6 = w 7, we have H(H (BG;Z/2);Q 0 ) = Z/2[w 4,c 6,w 8 ] c 6 = w 2 6. Of course the right hand side ring has no nonzero nilpotent elements. Hence we see that ρ H is surjective and H (BT) W Z/2 = Z/2[w 4,c 6,w 8 ]. The integral cohomogy is written as H (BG) = Z (2) [w 4,c 6,w 8 ] (Z (2) {1} Z/2[w 7 ]{w 7 }). In particular, we note res H is injective. Next we consider the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence E, 2 = H (BG) BP = BP (BG). Its differentials have forms of ( ) in 5. Using Q 1 (w 4 ) = x 7,Q 1 (e 7 ) = c 7, Q 2 (w 8 ) = w 7 w 8 and Q 3 (w 7 w 8 ) = c 7 c 8, we can compute the spectral sequence (while it is some what complicated) grbp (BG) = BP [c 4,c 6,c 8 ]{1,2w 4,2w 8,2w 4 w 8,v 1 w 8 } BP /(2,v 1,v 2 )[c 4,c 6,c 7,c 8 ]{c 7 }/(v 3 c 7 c 8 ). Hence BP (BG) BP Z (2) is isomorphic to Z (2) [c 4,c 6,c 8 ]{1,2w 4,2w 8,2w 4 w 8,v 1 w 8 }/(2v 1 w 8 ) Z/2[c 4,c 6,c 7,c 8 ]{c 7 }. On the other hand, the Chow ring of BG is given by Guillot [Gu,Ya] CH (BG) = BP (BG) BP Z (2) = Z(2) [c 4,c 6,c 8 ] (Z (2) {1,c 2,c 4.c 6 } Z/2{ξ 3} Z/2[c 7 ]{c 7 }) where cl(c i ) = w 2 i, cl(c 2 ) = 2w 4, cl(c 4 ) = 2w 8, cl(c 6 ) = 2w 4w 8, and cl(ξ 3 ) = 0, ξ 3 = 6. Note cl Ω (ξ 3 ) = v 1 w 8 in BP (BT) W, and ξ 3 = c in Corollary 5.5. Hence we have CH (BG)/Tor = Z (2) [c 4,c 6,c 8 ]{1,c 2,c 4.c 6 } Z (2) [w 4,c 6,w 8 ] = CH (BT) W. In fact the nilpotent ideal in (CH (BG)/(Tor)) Z/2 is generated by c 2,c 4,c 6.

13 CHOW RING AND WEYL GROUP INVARIANTS 13 Next we consider the Chow rings version for the restriction map res CH : CH (BG) Π A:ab. CH (BA) W G(A). Recall CH (BA ) = Z (2) [y 1,...,y 4 ] with cl(y i ) = x 2 i. Hence we have (CH (BA )/2) W G(A ) = Z/2[c4,c 6,c 7,c 8 ]. Since Tor is just 2-torsion, we have Lemma 6.1. For the torsion ideal Tor in CH (BG) res CH (Tor) = Z/2[c 4,c 6,c 8,c 7 ]{c 7 } CH (BA ). Thus weseethatker(res CH ) = Z/2[c 4,c 6,c 8 ]{ξ 3 },whichistheideal of Griffiths elements. We write down the above results. Theorem 6.2. Let (G,p) = (Spin(7),2). Let Grif be the ideal generated by Griffiths elements and D = Z (2) [c 4,c 6,c 8 ]. Then we have CH (BG)/Tor = D{1,2w 4,2w 8,2w 4 w 8 } D{1,w 4,w 8,w 4 w 8 } = CH (BT) W, with w 2 i = c i, Tor/Grif = D/2[c 7 ]{c 7 }, Grif = D/2{ξ 3 }. There is only onenonzero element ξ 3 in CH 3 (BG)/2, and this ξ 3 = c in Corollary 5.5 in the preceding section. Thus we see Theorem 1.2 in the introduction. Corollary 6.3. Take an element ξ Ω (BG) such that ξ = ξ 3 in Ω (BG) BP Z (2) = CH (BG). We also identify c i Ω (BG). Then Z/2[c 4.c 6,c 8 ]{ξ} Ω (BT) W /2. Theorem 6.4. Let G = Spin(7) and p = 2. We consider a (non natural) map CH (BG) Ω (BG) Ω (BT) (here the first inclusion is just one section of the projection Ω (BG) CH (BG)). Then the following restriction map is injective res : CH (BG) CH (BA ) Ω (BT). Corollary 6.5. Let J BP is the ideal J = (2 2,2v 1,v 2 1,v 2,...) so that BP /J = Z/4{1} Z/2{v 1 }. Let D = Z (2) [c 4,c 6,c 8 ]. Then Ω (BG)/J = (Ω /J D{1,c 2,c 4,c 6,ξ 3 }/(2ξ 3 = v 1 c 4)) D/2[c 7 ]{c 7 }.

14 14 NOBUAKI YAGITA 7. The exceptional group F 4, p = 3. In this section, we assume (G,p) = (F 4,3). (However similar arguments also work for (G,p) = (E 6,3),(E 7,3) and (E 8,5), [Ka-Ya].) Todacomputedthemod(3)cohomologyofBF 4. (Fordetailssee[Tod].) H (BG;Z/3) = C D, where C = F{1,x 20,x 2 20} Z/3[x 26 ] Λ(x 9 ) {1,x 20,x 21,x 26 } D = Z (3) [x 36,x 48 ], F = Z (3) [x 4,x 8 ]. Using that H (BG) has no higher 3-torsionand Q 0 x 8 = x 9, Q 0 x 20 = x 21, Q 0 x 25 = x 26, we can compute H (BG) = D C where C /Tor = Z (3) {x 4 } E, where E = F{ab a,b {x 4,x 8,x 20 }} C Tor = Z/3[x 26 ]{x 26,x 21,x 9,x 9 x 21 }. Note x 26 = Q 2 Q 1 (x 4 ) in Theorem 2.2 and H (BT;Z/p) W = H even (BG;Z/3)/(Q 2 Q 1 x 4 ) = D F{1,x 20,x 2 20}. Hence we see (H (BG)/Tor) Z/3 = D/3 (Z/3{1,x 4 } E) D/3 F{1,x 20,x 2 20}. Thus from Lemma 2.3, we see ρ H is surjective and H (BT) W = H (BG)/Tor = D (Z (3) {1,x 4 } E). Next we consider the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence [Ko-Ya] E, 2 = H (BG) BP = BP (BG). Its differentials have forms of ( ) in 5. Using Q 1 (x 4 ) = x 9,Q 1 (x 20 ) = x 25,Q 1 (x 21 ) = x 26 and Q 2 x 9 = x 26 we can compute grbp (BG) = D (BP (Z (3) {1,3x 4 } E) BP /(3,v 1,v 2 )[x 26 ]{x 26 }). Hence we have BP (BG) BP Z (3) = D (Z(3) {1,3x 4 } E Z/3[x 26 ]{x 26 }). Proposition 7.1. Let (G,p) = (F 4,3) and Tor Grif be the ideal generated by Griffiths elements. Then we have CH (BG)/Tor D (Z (3) {1,3x 4 } E) H (BG)/Tor, Tor/Grif = D Z/3[x 26 ]{x 26 }. If Totaro s conjecture is correct, then Grif = {0} and the first inclusion is an isomorphism. From [Ya1], it is known that if x 2 8 Im(cl)forthecyclemapcl, thenwecanshowthatcl itself issurjective. However it seems still unknown whether x 2 8 Im(cl) or not.

15 CHOW RING AND WEYL GROUP INVARIANTS 15 Corollary 7.2. Let (G,p) = (F 4,3). If ( ) in 5 is correct for some n 2, then the cycle map CH (BG) BP (BG) BP Z (3) is surjective and CH (BG)/Tor = D (Z (3) {1,3x 4 } E). Proof. The corollary follows from v n x 2 8 = 16 2(3n 1) 0. References [An] B. Antieau. On the integral Tate conjecture for finite fields and representation theory. arxiv: v2 [math.ag] May (2015). [Be-Wo] D. Benson and J. Wood. Integral invariants and cohomology of BSpin(n). Topology. 34 (1994), [Ca-Jo] G. Carlsson and R. Joshua. Motivic Spanier-Whitehead duality and motivic Becker-Becker-Gottlieb transfer. www. researchgate. net/ (2011). [Fe] M. Feshbach. The image of H (BG;Z) in H (BT;Z) for a compact Lie group with maximal torus T. Topology. 20 (1985), [Gu] P. Guillot. The Chow rings of G 2 and Spin(7). J. reine angew. Math. 604 (2007), [Ka1] M. Kameko. On the integral Tate conjecture over finite fields. Math. Proc. [Ka2] Cambridge Philos. Soc. 158 (2015), M. Kameko. Representation theory and the cycle map of a classifying space. arxiv: v1 [math.ag] Jan. (2016). [Ka-Mi] M. Kameko and M. Mimura, Wely group invariants. arxiiv: v1 [math.at], (2012). [Ka-Ya] M. Kameko and N. Yagita. The Brown-Peterson cohomology of the classifying spaces of the projective unitary group P U(p) and exceptional Lie groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008), [Ko] A. Kono, On the integral cohomology of BSpin(n). J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 26 (1986), [Ko-Ya] A. Kono and N.Yagita, Brown-Peterson and ordinary cohomology theories of classifying spaces for compact Lie groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 339 (1993), [Le-Mo1] M. Levine and F. Morel, Cobordisme algébrique I, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 332 (2001), [Le-Mo2] M. Levine and F. Morel, Cobordisme algébrique II, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 332 (2001), [Pi-Ya] A. Pirutka and N. Yagita. Note on the counterexamples for the integral Tate conjecture over finite fields. Document Math. Extra Vol. A. Merkurjev and A. Suslin s sixtieth birthday. (2015), [Qu1] D. Quillen, The mod 2 cohomology rings of extra-special 2-groups and the spinor groups, Math. Ann. 194 (1971), [Qu2] D. Quillen, A cohomological criterion for p-nilpotence. J. of Pure and Applied Algebra. 1 (1971), [Sc-Ya] B. Schuster and N. Yagita, Transfers of Chern classes in BP-cohomology [Tod] and Chow rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353 (2001), H. Toda, Cohomology mod(3) of the classifying space BF 4 of the exceptional group F 4. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 13 (1973)

16 16 NOBUAKI YAGITA [To1] [To2] [Tr] [Vi] [Vo1] [Vo2] [Wo] [Ya1] [Ya2] B. Totaro, The Chow ring of classifying spaces, Proc.of Symposia in Pure Math. Algebraic K-theory (1997:University of Washington,Seattle) 67 (1999), B. Totaro, Group cohomology and algebraic cycles, Cambridge tracts in Math. (Cambridge Univ. Press) 204 (2014). A. Tripathy. Further counterexamples to the integral Hodge conjecture. arxiv: /0v1 [math.ag] Jan. (2016). A. Vistoli. On the cohomolgy and the Chow ring of the classifying space PGL p. J. reine angew. Math. 610 (2007), V. Voevodsky, The Milnor conjecture, (1996). V. Voevodsky, Motivic cohomology with Z/2 coefficient, Publ. Math. IHES 98 (2003), J. Wood, Nilpotent elements in the Bockstein spectral sequence for BSpin(n). Contemporary Math. 146 (1993), N. Yagita, The image of the cycle map of classifying space of the exceptional Lie group F 4. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 44 (2004), N. Yagita, Coniveau filtration of cohomology of groups. Proc. London Math. Soc. 101 (2010), faculty of Education, Ibaraki University, Mito, Ibaraki, Japan address: nobuaki.yagita.math@vc.ibaraki.ac.jp,